I have now played it by PBEM from both sides against 2 different people. This is a sort of combined AAR of the 2 games.

We start with the victory conditions.

The Axis need to hold Russian Personnel Centres (“RPC”) at the end of the game as follows:

8 or more = Axis victory 6 or 7 = a draw 5 or less = a Russian victory.

As the scenario opens, the Axis already holds 7 RPC’s. The Axis need to capture 1 more RPC for a victory. The Russians need to re-capture 2 RPC for a victory.

Looking at the map, there are 3 the Moscow area.

And there are 4 in the south of the map. Kharkov begins in Axis hands and Stalingrad is impossible to capture in this scenario so that leaves 2 to be fought over.

Leningrad is a RPC as is the city one hex to the northwest. But both are impossible to capture during the course of this particular Scenario.

As the scenario opens, there is a bulge around the city of Kursk. However Kursk is not a RPC. And therefore not a victory location.

But, just north of Kursk, is the city of Orel and this is a RPC. And so the Axis, need to attack the Kursk bulge from the north simply as a way of protecting Orel

In the first game, my Russian troops slowly withdrew from the Kursk salient and used the troops to defend the 2 RPCs in the south. My Axis opponent put a big effort into attempting to destroy the troops in the salient. Late in the game he attacked towards the RPCs in the south but they were by then well defended and the lines held.

So long as the Russians don’t lose too many troops in the Kursk salient, they have a powerful force. In the first game, after withdrawing troops from the Kursk salient, my Russian troops attacked Orel, just north of Kursk and ultimately it was not too hard to capture it.

In the second game, my Axis troops started by attacking the north shoulder of the Kursk salient. The idea was to push back the Soviets so that in the long run the RPC of Orel would remain in Axis hands. This seemed to be working but my canny Russian opponent stretched my forces across the map and ultimately Orel fell to the Soviets. So the city fell in both games.

Meanwhile, in the south, my Axis forces put in a big effort against the 2 RPC’s there and both were captured. However, due to using the attrition option, my Axis forces became weaker as the scenario went on and my Russian opponent recaptured one of them.

From the Russians point of view, the Kursk bulge is useful, in keeping occupied a large number of Axis troops, who might otherwise be attacking deep into the Russian motherland. And yet the troops therein are very useful in making counterattacks.

Air superiority plays a big part in this scenario. The Axis begin with 22 Air Points (“AP”) and the Russians begin with 13.

The Axis receive an average of 1.60 AP’s replacements per turn and the Russian receives 0.50

If the Axis begin the Scenario by placing 18 AP’s in the Air Superiority box and (and use the remainder for ground support) and the Russians place 12, this means mathematically, the Russians will lose 3 AP’s in air combat per turn and the Axis will lose 2.

As the Axis can replace their losses much quicker than the Russians, the Russians will run out of AP’s after only 5 turns!

Further, a canny Axis player will keep track of the AP’s lost by the Soviets and after a few turns place only 12 AP’s in the air superiority box leaving more to be used for ground support. Eventually he only needs to place 6 AP’s in the air superiority box per turn to account for those late game AP replacements the Russian receives.

Having read this, a canny Russian player, could begin by placing no AP’s in the air superiority box until such a time he has 18 available and then use them all in one go.

Then the following turn, remove all AP’s from the air superiority box until such time he has accumulated 18 AP’s and strike again!. This will keep the Axis player on his toes and cause him to place 18 AP’s in the air superiority box for most of the scenario. This means he has 12 fewer to use in the ground support role and should lead to a near automatic Russian victory.

As it turns out, in the first game my Soviets had a victory and in the second game my Axis troops held on for a draw. In this second game, we were helped in this by some bad weather which slowed the advance of the Russians.

I am a newby to this game system and this was a good learning experience.

It seems War in Europe is about the same as the scenario-Europe Aflamed in The operation art of warfare 3. Does anyone know if they are closely related in game play?

I doubt it. The strategic scenarios in TOAW are stretching the system a wee bit. I played the Europe Aflame a few times in COW-I don't think it would be that much different now. Things such as special reinforcements can be made through events, sometimes in a rather crafty and intelligent way. However, compared to a game that is designed for production, research and other strategic concerns, TOAW is left wanting-it was not intended for such use. There are those that will never quit trying though.

Whether this new game conducts combat better than TOAW-I don't know. I tried the demo and was not immediately overtaken with interest. I will give it another shot later on, but it would really have to be a good game to justify that price w/o an ai.

One similarity those games have is that you actually have to tell each unit where to go (although you can hace stacks in TOAW). In this stage of warfare gaming, that similarity would not be something to brag about-especially for a strategic level game with many hundreds of units.

Another feature this game has, that I had only ever seen in SSG’s games, when you complete a PBEM turn, the game automatically creates an email , addressed to you’re opponent, with the file attached, ready for sending.Great feature!-

Don't forget the HPS "First Blitzkrieg" and "Southern Front" games as another alternative. That series is going to be melded into a giant "War in Europe" game at some point. It doesn't have the strategic elements of CWIE such as production, but does have a more sophisticated airwar module. Graphically, I would give CWIE a slight edge, but the HPS games are very detailed historically and every unit is defined. CWIE doesn't really give you any detail about unit composition and tactically it's simpler than TOAW and the HPS series. For example, "First Blitzkrieg" specifically identifies every squadron and it's mission type and then you specifically allocate them to ground support when needed. CWIE has a button to click to "assign" one unit of air support and that's it... you can't add two units... and there is no identification of specific air units in the game at all. They are just air points being assigned. On the other hand, the CWIE combat display is easier to read and evaluate with TOAW a close second. The HPS games seem a bit more confusing about the relationship of combat odds to the actual results, but that may just be me.

I think TOAW plays easier overall. HPS has the historicity. CWIE has the superior strategic elements.

Forgot about the HPS series. Would cost you more in the long haul though at 40.00 - 50.00 per game. Also how many months if not years into the future will the New series take before HPS gets to the final giant War in Europe. Your micro reviews below on the differences between each game got me to thinkings. Thanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Don't forget the HPS "First Blitzkrieg" and "Southern Front" games as another alternative. That series is going to be melded into a giant "War in Europe" game at some point. It doesn't have the strategic elements of CWIE such as production, but does have a more sophisticated airwar module. Graphically, I would give CWIE a slight edge, but the HPS games are very detailed historically and every unit is defined. CWIE doesn't really give you any detail about unit composition and tactically it's simpler than TOAW and the HPS series. For example, "First Blitzkrieg" specifically identifies every squadron and it's mission type and then you specifically allocate them to ground support when needed. CWIE has a button to click to "assign" one unit of air support and that's it... you can't add two units... and there is no identification of specific air units in the game at all. They are just air points being assigned. On the other hand, the CWIE combat display is easier to read and evaluate with TOAW a close second. The HPS games seem a bit more confusing about the relationship of combat odds to the actual results, but that may just be me.

I think TOAW plays easier overall. HPS has the historicity. CWIE has the superior strategic elements.

Your pick.

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

Ordered the game aweek ago. $12.00 bucks for shipment. Seems awful slow for this day and age. Bought their War between the States and it was deliver very slow(at $120.00 plus dollars). Is decision games always this slow? Asking you guys who bought from them. I would e-mail them but their customer service says the wait could be up to a month(their nutts-if they really think that).

< Message edited by Titanwarrior89 -- 7/9/2009 11:53:13 PM >

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

I sent them a e-mail but no answer. Oh well. I was hoping to get the game down. My wife is out of town and I have time on my hands. What I don't understand is that some game companies require a high shipping cost but their service is still slow. In this day and age in the US of A delivery should never take that long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

I live in Australia and it took 2 whole weeks for the game to arrive.

-

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

It finally arrived. I had a open weekend and the wife out of town and guess what doesn't show up. Oh well-did I say I hate ups and their term 7 business days. You know that during certain times of the year that could be pushing a month. And still want a arm and a leg for shipping.

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

The concept behind the release of WIE in a computer version with optional rules and no AI is an attempt by S&T to bring some of there bigger board games on to the computer which acts as bookkeeper and referee. If they are successful in there belief that PBEM will be the dominant game form of the future they stand to make a fair amount of money. I find fun in playing CWIE solo with the fog of war to be great fun but not being a great PBEM player I do not see the S&T getting there way. CWIE is complicated by needing three players to make it interesting rather than letting the allied player play both Russians and Allied can be a great advantage to them. Most Allied players will not commit large forces to france, some will invade the low countries or other places where the German might go. German players might use the time between the fall of Poland and ther next invasion to build a large mobile force by converting many of the units from the polish invasion. With Fog of war the sides have no idea where the units of any given side are.

Because of the various and many different strategy's it is tempting to try a PBEM game but finding two other players and the time required is most difficult for me. THis is the basic reason I do not engage in PBEM and the fact that in many of the newer games such as WitP I am not a good enough player but do enjoy playing even if I can barely stay ahead of the AI LOL.

In short if PBEM becomes popular S&T might get what they want even if the price is very high. I will keep a watchful eye on this trend.

I do pbem on some games and some not. Ive played witp alot pbem. I probley with play this one pbem after I get it down-but I will play it solo. I think your correct about them hoping pbem will be the direction of the future in game cd sales.

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

Thank you for the trip down memory lane. Did not know Strategy&Tactics SPI were still around. As a kid I looked forward to that magazine coming with a game. Destruction of Army Group Center was my first issue. Then there was Scrimmage??????????????????? I am 52 for time datimg.